|
|
You're in the
dotnet compact framework
group:Mobile 2 Server: WCF or asmx
dotnet compact framework:
Hi,
We are in the process of developing a Windows Mobile 5 app. It's "only" a GUI app communicating with a server with web services. We are not sure if we should use the old asmx web service or the new WCF (web services). Any advice? Thanks
Hi,
It depends what you need to do, WCF propose 2 different bindings : - BasicHttpBinding : it is pratically the same WS as CF V2 (HTT=A8P client / server) - WindowsMobileMailBinding : this allows one device to send data to a central data store (asynchronous bidirectionnal message) and even directly to another device using Email trasport, it simplies data transfert if you loose connection, change network or IP addresses. WCF offers more possibilities, but perhaps that the CF 2.0 will be enough for your case. Check out this for details : http://blogs.msdn.com/markprenticems/archive/2007/04/25/introduction-to-the= -windows-communication-foundation-for-the-net-compact-framework-store-and-f= orward-messaging.aspx Hope this help you, don't hesitate to give details and ask questions if you want. Fabien Decret (Device Application Development MVP) Windows Embedded Consultant ADENEO (ADESET) http://www.adeneo.adetelgroup.com/ | http://fabdecret.blogspot.com/ [quoted text, click to view] On 14 oct, 20:39, "Hans Artm" <ha48...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > We are in the process of developing a Windows Mobile 5 app. It's "only" a > GUI app communicating with a server with web services. We are not sure if= we > should use the old asmx web service or the new WCF (web services). Any > advice? > > Thanks
My advice is to use WCF as it allows greater flexibility server side for any
future changes by simple means of changing the configuration file. In addition, it's Microsoft's future strategy and easier to use advanced features, why develop new code using old technology? Not to mention, if you are doing advanced stuff with web services such as reliable messaging, transaction support, WS-Security etc you will have to use additional libraries to add this to SOAP - known as WSE (Web service extensions) WCF handles all this without you having to worry about it. You will get a better response though if you post this to the WCF group; try here: microsoft.public.windows.developer.winfx.indigo -- Simon Hart Visual Developer - Device Application Development MVP http://simonrhart.blogspot.com [quoted text, click to view] "Hans Artm" wrote:
> Hi, > > We are in the process of developing a Windows Mobile 5 app. It's "only" a > GUI app communicating with a server with web services. We are not sure if we > should use the old asmx web service or the new WCF (web services). Any > advice? > > Thanks > >
Hello Simon:
I was reading your reply and thought I'd add a couple of quick items. First off, I completely agree with your assertion that it probably makes more sense for anyone to "build new code using new technologies," all things being equal. We use WCF extensively on a Warehouse Management System we built (between the Desktop clients and the Server), but use MSMQ between our mobile devices and the Server. I have been patiently waiting for CF 3.5 because I'm wanting to "consolidate" all my communication to WCF for all clients instead of having to support both WCF and native MSMQ (version 3). Frankly, I was hoping that the MsmqBinding would be available on the mobile, but was disappointed to see the only two mobile bindings are BasicHttpBinding and the WindowsMobileMailBinding. Interesting enough, the mail binding offers some of the benefits of MSMQ, but it brings along the requirement of an Exhange Server to act as a relay. I love Exchange as much as the next guy, but also believe in keeping systems as simple as possible - adding Exchange unneccessarily complicates, adds expense, and reduces reliability. MsmqBinding would have been a much better approach in my opinion. Anyway I was also disappointed to read that all those other great WCF features (sessions, callbacks, reliable messaging, transactions, and all the missing bindings) are missing from the mobile version too. So, although desktop WCF supports this stuff the mobile world will have to create their own CustomBindings .... ouch. Take care and thanks -- Stay Mobile [quoted text, click to view] "Simon Hart [MVP]" wrote:
> My advice is to use WCF as it allows greater flexibility server side for any > future changes by simple means of changing the configuration file. In > addition, it's Microsoft's future strategy and easier to use advanced > features, why develop new code using old technology? Not to mention, if you > are doing advanced stuff with web services such as reliable messaging, > transaction support, WS-Security etc you will have to use additional > libraries to add this to SOAP - known as WSE (Web service extensions) WCF > handles all this without you having to worry about it. > > You will get a better response though if you post this to the WCF group; try > here: microsoft.public.windows.developer.winfx.indigo > > -- > Simon Hart > Visual Developer - Device Application Development MVP > http://simonrhart.blogspot.com > > > "Hans Artm" wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > We are in the process of developing a Windows Mobile 5 app. It's "only" a > > GUI app communicating with a server with web services. We are not sure if we > > should use the old asmx web service or the new WCF (web services). Any > > advice? > > > > Thanks > > > >
Yes. Because of the nature of WMS systems, there's a certain amount of
tweaking and customization that's required for each customer, but it's pretty cool what it does. Thanks -- Stay Mobile [quoted text, click to view] "Peter Huish" wrote:
> > > equal. We use WCF extensively on a Warehouse Management System we built > > (between the Desktop clients and the Server), but use MSMQ between our mobile > > devices and the Server. > > Is this a commercial product? > > > pete
[quoted text, click to view] > equal. We use WCF extensively on a Warehouse Management System we built > (between the Desktop clients and the Server), but use MSMQ between our mobile > devices and the Server. Is this a commercial product?
Yes ... I was thinking along those lines (possibly) too. I need to do some
homework on this, but I might give it a shot of creating my own MsmqBinding for the mobile WCF. My current native MSMQ on my mobile devices offers the same advantages (at least from what I can tell with the, admittedly, little amount of info I have so for on all this) as the WindowsMobileMailBinding that being the ability to "address" (or push) an unsolicitied Message to a mobile device. By the very nature of MSMQ, I can send a Message to the device even though my application is off-line, and MSMQ will handle the tasks of ensuring the Message was delivered exactly once (and will keep trying until the entire message arrives in-tact). As long as I have an appropriate "time to live" value for the Message (and any matching message delvery statuses that I may be interested in) my Server can send a Message and I can trust in that Message showing up to scanners. Then, when the user grabs a scanner, turns it on, and then activates the software I am able to attach to the queue and grab any Messages that may be pending. Of course the same advantages exist when sending info from the scanners to the Server. This level of "asynchronous, bi-directional, disconnected" communication is highly valued in our shop because of the automatic problems that come with maintaining network connections when mobile - walking around large warehouses, driving OTR for delivery drivers across the country, dead spots in the network coverage, etc., etc. The biggest difference I see so far is my current architecture uses the MSMQ component that's built-in to my Windows 2003 Server (which simply runs as a service) versus the need for Exchange if you go with the WindowsMobileMailBinding. Setting up MSMQ on a box takes all of about 5 minutes - setting up Exchange (plus the expense of the licensing) certainly takes me much longer. I never seem to be able to install it in less than an hour on a clean box, plus the configuration time ..... The thing that makes me curious about all this is the fact that MSMQ is even included as a built-in component from your Visual Studio Tool Box .... what I mean is that there is already a tremendous support for MSMQ in the mobile world anyway - why not take advantage of this fact with WCF? What I might try is to create a "WCF wrapper" around the mobile MSMQ component. At a minimum it would be a good exercise in extending WCF, which as you point out, MS has done a great job in making this possible. I need to do some leg work before, though, because with some of the other missing WCF features this entire effort may prove to result in something that would still be "less" than what I already have - don't have the time to spend on this if it's not going to be a step forward. All my complaining aside, I'm still glad MS has brought WCF to the mobile world. After 24 years of building software (the last 7 have been completey focused on moblie dev) I appreicate having a "unified" approach between the destktop/server/mobile device. I realize mobile will always be a cut-down version, but it's still good to be using the same things where possible. Thanks Chris .... if I dive in I'll keep you posted on the effort. Markus Anderson Pervasive Thinking, Inc. -- Stay Mobile [quoted text, click to view] "<ctacke/>" wrote:
> Yes, custom bindings seem to be the only way to make much use of WCF. That > said, the support is there, and a new binding looks to be only a few days of > work depending on what you need support for, so it still not too bad. > > > -- > > Chris Tacke, eMVP > Join the Embedded Developer Community > http://community.opennetcf.com > > > > > "MobileMan" <MobileMan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:B00613C6-AC94-4E26-AEAA-C8B6AB0BA026@microsoft.com... > > Hello Simon: > > > > I was reading your reply and thought I'd add a couple of quick items. > > First > > off, I completely agree with your assertion that it probably makes more > > sense > > for anyone to "build new code using new technologies," all things being > > equal. We use WCF extensively on a Warehouse Management System we built > > (between the Desktop clients and the Server), but use MSMQ between our > > mobile > > devices and the Server. I have been patiently waiting for CF 3.5 because > > I'm > > wanting to "consolidate" all my communication to WCF for all clients > > instead > > of having to support both WCF and native MSMQ (version 3). > > > > Frankly, I was hoping that the MsmqBinding would be available on the > > mobile, > > but was disappointed to see the only two mobile bindings are > > BasicHttpBinding > > and the WindowsMobileMailBinding. Interesting enough, the mail binding > > offers some of the benefits of MSMQ, but it brings along the requirement > > of > > an Exhange Server to act as a relay. I love Exchange as much as the next > > guy, but also believe in keeping systems as simple as possible - adding > > Exchange unneccessarily complicates, adds expense, and reduces > > reliability. > > MsmqBinding would have been a much better approach in my opinion. > > > > Anyway I was also disappointed to read that all those other great WCF > > features (sessions, callbacks, reliable messaging, transactions, and all > > the > > missing bindings) are missing from the mobile version too. So, although > > desktop WCF supports this stuff the mobile world will have to create their > > own CustomBindings .... ouch. > > > > Take care and thanks > > -- > > Stay Mobile > > > > > > "Simon Hart [MVP]" wrote: > > > >> My advice is to use WCF as it allows greater flexibility server side for > >> any > >> future changes by simple means of changing the configuration file. In > >> addition, it's Microsoft's future strategy and easier to use advanced > >> features, why develop new code using old technology? Not to mention, if > >> you > >> are doing advanced stuff with web services such as reliable messaging, > >> transaction support, WS-Security etc you will have to use additional > >> libraries to add this to SOAP - known as WSE (Web service extensions) WCF > >> handles all this without you having to worry about it. > >> > >> You will get a better response though if you post this to the WCF group; > >> try > >> here: microsoft.public.windows.developer.winfx.indigo > >> > >> -- > >> Simon Hart > >> Visual Developer - Device Application Development MVP > >> http://simonrhart.blogspot.com > >> > >> > >> "Hans Artm" wrote: > >> > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > We are in the process of developing a Windows Mobile 5 app. It's "only" > >> > a > >> > GUI app communicating with a server with web services. We are not sure > >> > if we > >> > should use the old asmx web service or the new WCF (web services). Any > >> > advice? > >> >
Yes, custom bindings seem to be the only way to make much use of WCF. That
said, the support is there, and a new binding looks to be only a few days of work depending on what you need support for, so it still not too bad. -- Chris Tacke, eMVP Join the Embedded Developer Community http://community.opennetcf.com [quoted text, click to view] "MobileMan" <MobileMan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:B00613C6-AC94-4E26-AEAA-C8B6AB0BA026@microsoft.com... > Hello Simon: > > I was reading your reply and thought I'd add a couple of quick items. > First > off, I completely agree with your assertion that it probably makes more > sense > for anyone to "build new code using new technologies," all things being > equal. We use WCF extensively on a Warehouse Management System we built > (between the Desktop clients and the Server), but use MSMQ between our > mobile > devices and the Server. I have been patiently waiting for CF 3.5 because > I'm > wanting to "consolidate" all my communication to WCF for all clients > instead > of having to support both WCF and native MSMQ (version 3). > > Frankly, I was hoping that the MsmqBinding would be available on the > mobile, > but was disappointed to see the only two mobile bindings are > BasicHttpBinding > and the WindowsMobileMailBinding. Interesting enough, the mail binding > offers some of the benefits of MSMQ, but it brings along the requirement > of > an Exhange Server to act as a relay. I love Exchange as much as the next > guy, but also believe in keeping systems as simple as possible - adding > Exchange unneccessarily complicates, adds expense, and reduces > reliability. > MsmqBinding would have been a much better approach in my opinion. > > Anyway I was also disappointed to read that all those other great WCF > features (sessions, callbacks, reliable messaging, transactions, and all > the > missing bindings) are missing from the mobile version too. So, although > desktop WCF supports this stuff the mobile world will have to create their > own CustomBindings .... ouch. > > Take care and thanks > -- > Stay Mobile > > > "Simon Hart [MVP]" wrote: > >> My advice is to use WCF as it allows greater flexibility server side for >> any >> future changes by simple means of changing the configuration file. In >> addition, it's Microsoft's future strategy and easier to use advanced >> features, why develop new code using old technology? Not to mention, if >> you >> are doing advanced stuff with web services such as reliable messaging, >> transaction support, WS-Security etc you will have to use additional >> libraries to add this to SOAP - known as WSE (Web service extensions) WCF >> handles all this without you having to worry about it. >> >> You will get a better response though if you post this to the WCF group; >> try >> here: microsoft.public.windows.developer.winfx.indigo >> >> -- >> Simon Hart >> Visual Developer - Device Application Development MVP >> http://simonrhart.blogspot.com >> >> >> "Hans Artm" wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > We are in the process of developing a Windows Mobile 5 app. It's "only" >> > a >> > GUI app communicating with a server with web services. We are not sure >> > if we >> > should use the old asmx web service or the new WCF (web services). Any >> > advice? >> > >> > Thanks >> > >> > >> >
Don't see what you're looking for? Try a search.
|
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
| home · blog · groups | Questions? Comments? Contact the dn |